I constantly hear Christian
conservatives say they must vote for "the lesser of two evils." This
mostly translates into a vote for a pseudo-conservative Republican who,
once elected, implements the same basic policies that just about any
Democratic candidate would have implemented.

However, rather than admit there is
virtually no difference between a pseudo-conservative Republican and an
openly liberal Democrat, Christian conservatives continue to argue the
benefits of voting for "the lesser of two evils."

Question: if these same Christian
conservatives had the opportunity to vote for Nero or Caligula, for
whom would they vote? Would they vote for Nero because he slaughtered
fewer Christians than Caligula? Would they overlook the murder of the
Apostle Paul because in the grand scheme of things, Nero is not
regarded as bloodthirsty as Caligula?

Philosophically, the above scenario is
not much different from the logic used by Christian conservatives today
who choose to overlook the violent injustices to the Constitution, the
continued destruction of unborn babies, and the utter contempt for less
government that are routinely demonstrated by recent Republican
presidents. Their only argument for the continued support of such
people is, "They are the lesser of two evils." Therefore, I suppose we
would hear Christian conservatives say, "Vote for Nero; he is the
lesser of two evils."

When Christian conservatives attempt
to defend G.W. Bush, they usually point to his signing a partial birth
abortion bill as some great accomplishment which sets him apart from
pro-abortion Democrats. But does it, really? I think not.

In the first place, the ink had not
even dried on the paper when a federal judge struck down the partial
birth abortion bill as "unconstitutional." Has anyone heard anything
about it since? Has President Bush used his bully pulpit to protest the
court's decision? Has he petitioned Congress to impeach the judge or to
at least exercise their constitutional authority under Article II,
Section 2, to limit the court's jurisdiction in this matter? No.

Does anyone believe that President
Bush and the Republican members of Congress who supported the partial
birth abortion bill really believe that a federal court would not
declare it to be "unconstitutional?" They expected it, and they planned
to do nothing about it. Therefore, the net result is, not one single
baby has been saved because President Bush signed a partial birth
abortion bill.

What people need to understand is that
the purpose of the partial birth abortion bill was never to save
babies' lives, it was only to dupe naïve conservatives into
believing that President Bush achieved some great victory for the
pro-life cause. And it worked.

Let me put it to you another way.
Suppose there is an island with five bridges connecting it to a
mainland. One bridge is located in such a place that fewer than 2% of
all traffic to the island crosses over it. Suppose the president
publicly states that he is opposed to traffic crossing any of the
bridges, and to show his commitment to opposition to bridge crossing,
he shuts down the bridge which carries 2% of the traffic volume and
leaves the other four bridges which carry 98% of the traffic volume
intact.

Furthermore, this outspoken opponent
to bridge crossing president stands back and does nothing as a judge
comes in afterward and reopens that one bridge, even though he and his
fellow opponents to bridge crossing in Congress have the authority to
close, not only that one bridge, but all the bridges. Would anyone take
him seriously when he later repeated his assertion that he was opposed
to bridge crossing?

This is exactly the way President Bush
has treated the abortion issue, and Christian conservatives continue to
call him a "pro-life" president. Talk about gullible!

Furthermore, the life issue is only
one of many issues in which the difference between Mr. Bush and just
about any liberal Democrat are about as substantial as the difference
between Nero and Caligula.

For example, both President Bush and
most Democrats say they oppose homosexual marriage but support "civil
unions" for homosexuals. Both Bush and most Democrats explode federal
spending. Both Bush and most Democrats support the Clinton gun ban.
Both Bush and most Democrats support granting illegal aliens some form
of amnesty. Both Bush and most Democrats support the creation of an
Orwellian-style police state via the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security and the passage of The USA Patriot Act.

The main difference between
pseudo-conservatives such as G.W. Bush and liberal Democrats is that
Bush professes to be conservative while most Democrats profess to be
liberal. So, which is "the lesser of two evils?" The one who tells you
he is a liberal and means it, or the one who tells you he is a
conservative and doesn't?

Choosing between a phony conservative
Republican and an honest liberal Democrat is no choice at all. One may
as well argue the benefits of voting for Nero over Caligula. No, the
only choice is to vote for a true conservative. If one cannot be found
in the Republican Party, try looking to a minor party. The Constitution
Party comes to mind. If enough conservatives would vote their
conscience, the Constitution Party would not be a minor party, and we
wouldn't be left choosing between Nero and Caligula as "the lesser of
two evils."

Chuck Baldwin is
Founder-Pastor of
Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was
recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and
influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively,
hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications
Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long
call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a
conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly
articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and
newspapers.

"When Christian
conservatives attempt to defend G.W. Bush, they usually point to his
signing a partial birth abortion bill as some great accomplishment
which sets him apart from pro-abortion Democrats. But does it, really?
I think not."